Not sure whom to choose, in modern cricket not sure if it is possible to play four fast bolwers with some flat pitches and over rates to contend with. That being said Garner at times played the role of a spinner keeping it tight with his yorkers and rib ticklers. All of the bowlers contended will with flat wickets and turning tracks especially Marshall, Holding and the aforementioned Garner. The effect of Sobers though is greater felt as a seamer than a spinner, especially as an attacking option, but could have kept it tight as a spinner as well and rip it with his wrist spin option.
Gibbs is also under rated and a notorious spinner of the ball, if he had the conditions of Laker and some of the other early finger spinners no doubt would have had similar results, but as it is he was just or more succesful as the Indian spinners and to boot the first spinner to 300 test wickets is no mean feat.
Will think about it a bit more before I vote, Garner's average and s/r vs Gibbs variety. Both were, to boot excellent fielders aswell. Tough decision.

Marshall
Holding
Ambrose
Garner .. Went with the 4 pace attack as Sobers, Richards can be the spin option..almost went for Ramadhin for Garner as he had this ability to spin both ways (cricinfo says) which would have been an asset

(For the purposes of this post I'm basically going to assume that the pecking order for West Indian quicks is Marshall-Ambrose-Holding-Garner, even though I actually disagree).

The way I look at the fourth quick v Gibbs argument is this: if a batsman, or perhaps more importantly a partnership, had managed to see off Marshall, Ambrose and Holding, who'd be more likely to get the breakthrough? GIbbs or Garner?

Personally I feel that if a batsman really could withstand that first trio, it's likely he's either a superb player or pace bowling or the pitch is offering nothing to the quicks (or quite likely both). In either situation I definitely think having Gibbs, who would challenge different parts of the technique of the batsmen in and get assistance from different tracks, would be the better call. Sometimes the fourth quick is just better than the spinner by enough to make him the more likely of the two in that situation anyway, especially if the first three quicks aren't as good as they are here, but Gibbs was a great spinner so I think he should get the nod really.

Last edited by Prince EWS; 14-11-2012 at 11:37 AM.

Rejecting 'analysis by checklist' and 'skill absolutism' since Dec '09
'Stats' is not a synonym for 'Career Test Averages'

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Tucker

People go into politics to change the world. That's a bad idea. The only good reason to go into politics is to sweep government away so that the world can change itself.

Originally Posted by GIMH

Freddie is the greatest cricketer ever so the fact these comparisons are being made means three things:

(For the purposes of this post I'm basically going to assume that the pecking order for West Indian quicks is Marshall-Ambrose-Holding-Garner, even though I actually disagree).

The way I look at the fourth quick v Gibbs argument is this: if a batsman, or perhaps more importantly a partnership, had managed to see off Marshall, Ambrose and Holding, who'd be more likely to get the breakthrough? GIbbs or Garner?

Personally I feel that if a batsman really could withstand that first trio, it's likely he's either a superb player or pace bowling or the pitch is offering nothing to the quicks (or quite likely both). In either situation I definitely think having Gibbs, who would challenge different parts of the technique of the batsmen in and get assistance from different tracks, would be the better call. Sometimes the fourth quick is just better than the spinner by enough to make him the more likely of the two in that situation anyway, especially if the first three quicks aren't as good as they are here, but Gibbs was a great spinner so I think he should get the nod really.

Marshall
Ambrose
Holding
Gibbs

Good point. I agree. But why not pick the quicks from your own pecking order?

Good point. I agree. But why not pick the quicks from your own pecking order?

I just think Walsh was better than Garner, which in the end was irrelevant to my vote because I voted for Gibbs. If I used Walsh in the example, no doubt someone would've quoted it saying I was intellectually dishonest by not using the right bowler etc. It seems Garner is favoured here by those who want four quicks so it was better to use him for the argument.